Arthur
R. Butz is an associate professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer
Science at Northwestern University.

1.
A Short Introduction
to the Study of Holocaust Revisionism

1.
I see three principal reasons for the widespread but erroneous belief in the
legend of millions of Jews killed by the Germans during World War II: US and
British troops found horrible piles of corpses in the west German camps they
captured in 1945 (e.g. Dachau and Belsen), there are no longer large
communities of Jews in Poland, and historians generally support the legend.

2.
During both world wars Germany was forced to fight typhus, carried by lice in
the constant traffic with the east. That is why all accounts of entry into the
German concentration camps speak of shaving of hair and showering and other
delousing procedures, such as treatment of quarters with the pesticide Zyklon.
That was also the main reason for a high death rate in the camps, and the
crematoria that existed in all.

3.
When Germany collapsed in chaos then of course all such defenses ceased, and
typhus and other diseases became rampant in the camps, which quartered mainly
political prisoners, ordinary criminals, homosexuals, conscientious objectors,
and Jews conscripted for labor. Hence the horrible scenes, which however had
nothing to do with "extermination" or any deliberate policy.
Moreover the west German camps involved were not the alleged
"extermination camps", which were all in Poland (e.g. Auschwitz and
Treblinka) and which were all evacuated or shut down before capture by the
Soviets, who found no such scenes.

4.
The "Final Solution" spoken of in the German documents was a program
of evacuation, resettlement and deportation of Jews with the ultimate
objective of expulsion from Europe. During the war Jews of various
nationalities were being moved east, as one stage in this Final Solution. The
legend claims that the motion was mainly for extermination purposes.

5.
The great majority of the millions allegedly exterminated were east European,
not German or west European, Jews. For that reason study of the problem via
population statistics has been difficult to impossible, but it is a fact that
there are no longer large communities of Jews in Poland. However the Germans
were only one of several parties involved in moving Jews around. The Soviets
deported virtually all of the Jews of eastern Poland to their interior in
1940. After the war, with Polish and other Jews pouring out of the east into
occupied west Germany, the Zionists moved large numbers to Palestine, and the
US and other countries absorbed many Jews, in most cases under conditions
making impossible a numerical accounting. Moreover the Polish borders were
changed drastically at the end of the war; the country was literally moved
west.

6.
Historians generally support the legend, but there are precedents for nearly
incomprehensible blindness on the part of scholars. For example throughout the
Middle Ages even the Pope's political enemies conceded his false claim that
the 4th century Emperor Constantine had ceded rule of the west to the Pope,
although all knew very well that Constantine had been succeeded by more
emperors. Near unanimity among the academics is especially suspect when there
exist great political pressures; in some countries Holocaust revisionists have
been prosecuted.

7.
It is easy to show that the extermination legend merits skepticism. Even the
casual reader of the Holocaust literature knows that during the war virtually
nobody acted as though it was happening. Thus it is common to berate the
Vatican, the Red Cross and the Allies (especially the intelligence agencies)
for their ignorance and inaction, and to explain that the Jews generally did
not resist deportation because they did not know what was in store for them.
If you add all this up you have the strange claim that for almost three years
German trains, operating on a continental scale in densely civilized regions
of Europe, were regularly and systematically moving millions of Jews to their
deaths, and nobody noticed except for a few of our Jewish leaders who were
making public "extermination" claims.

8.
On closer examination even those few Jewish leaders were not acting as though
it was happening. Ordinary communications between the occupied and neutral
countries were open, and they were in contact with the Jews whom the Germans
were deporting, who thus could not have been in ignorance of
"extermination" if those claims had any validity.

9.
This incredible ignorance must also be attributed to Hans Oster's department
in German military intelligence, correctly labeled "the veritable general
staff of the opposition to Hitler" in a recent review.

10.
What we are offered in evidence was gathered after the war, in trials. The
evidence is almost all oral testimony and "confessions". Without the
evidence of these trials there would be no significant evidence of
"extermination". One must pause and ponder this carefully. Were
trials needed to determine that the Battle of Waterloo happened? The bombings
of Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The slaughter in Cambodia? Yet
this three year program, of continental scope, claiming millions of victims,
requires trials to argue its reality. I am not arguing that the trials were
illegal or unfair; I am arguing that such historical logic as the legend rests
on must not be countenanced. Such events cannot happen without generating
commensurate and contemporaneous evidence for their reality, just as a great
forest fire cannot take place without producing smoke. One may as well believe
that New York City was burned down, if confessions to the deed can be
produced.

11.
Detailed consideration of the specific evidence put forward in support of the
legend has been a focus of the revisionist literature and cannot be undertaken
here, but I shall mention one point. The claim of the legend is that there
were no technical means provided for the specific task of extermination, and
that means originally provided for other purposes did double duty in
improvised arrangements. Thus the Jews were allegedly gassed with the
pesticide Zyklon, and their corpses disappeared into the crematoria along with
the deaths from "ordinary" causes (the ashes or other remains of
millions of victims never having been found).

To
those of us who have been concerned with this problem since this past summer,
the new article reveals perhaps only one new thing that I shall explain below.
To others, it reveals that Mark Weber is not a revisionist. Only because the
title of the new article is provocative is it now widely recognized by the
revisionist community that Mark Weber is not one of us.

The
fact that Weber is not a revisionist is important, and its treatment here
required only a few words. Mark Weber's thoughts on the question that the
title of his new article raises are less important but require more words. I
shall comment on those thoughts anyway.

Weber's
title commits a common sin, namely, challenging or asserting the relevance of
something without specifying what the relevance is supposed to apply to. It is
obvious nonsense to ask "When will the train reach?" It has to be
something like "When will the train reach Detroit?" Therefore I
shall try to determine what Mark Weber thinks revisionism is irrelevant to,
and frankly the answer is unimportant. If revisionism's central claims are
wrong then it ought to be abandoned. Why wonder about its relevance to
anything? For example, I concede that revisionism is irrelevant to baking
pies, but that doesn't make me a non-revisionist. What, then, does Mark Weber
think revisionism is irrelevant to?

About
half-way through his paper he seems to answer the question begged by his
title, by making a curious assumption. He writes "But despite a
discouraging record of achievement, some revisionists insist that their work
is vitally important because success in exposing the Holocaust as a hoax will
deliver a shattering blow to Israel and Jewish-Zionist power."

His
relevance, then, would appear to be in terms of fighting Israel. I doubt that
I know even one revisionist whose revisionism is so motivated. On the other
hand, we tend to note that implication as an observation. I suppose all of us
agree that the success of revisionism would be bad for Israel, and we
understand that much of the persecution we suffer is based on that fact. We do
not wish Israel well.

I
wrote many years ago, in the Foreword to my book The Hoax of the
Twentieth Century,http://www.vho.org/GB/Books/thottc/that my historical investigations were motivated by my
"Noting the obvious ways in which this legend is exploited in
contemporary politics, notably in connection with the completely illogical
support that the U.S. extends to Israel". That political judgment of mine
didn't make me a revisionist; the investigations that were thereby motivated
made me a revisionist. I found rubbish.

Serious revisionists promote revisionism
because it is historically correct, not because it's bad for Israel. I would be a revisionist even if it were good for
Israel. I suppose one could find people who think we help Israel in some
devious or backhanded way.

Mark
Weber's presumption, that we should be motivated to harm Israel, says more
about his motivations than ours, and something about his concept of IHR's
mission.

However
that is not the worst of it. After seeming to have explained, mid-way through
the article, what revisionism is allegedly not relevant to, Weber upsets the
whole cart. He notes that in recent years "the Holocaust assumed an
important role in the social-cultural life of America and western
Europe," but he also claims that in today's political context the
"Holocaust imagery [is] less relevant."

It
is difficult for me to deal with these less important aspects of Mark Weber's
recent article because of this confusion regarding what revisionism is
supposedly irrelevant to and the nature of the current political-cultural
scene. The last is, we are asked to believe, characterized by both Holocaust
obsession and an irrelevance of the Holocaust legend to contemporary problems.

That
is confusing, but unimportant. I think the Holocaust obsession is a
contemporary problem, and a big one that sheds light on many other problems.

Others
may wish to parse Mark Weber's thoughts more carefully, but I have no patience
for that. It is a waste of time. As I noted earlier, I would be a revisionist
even if it were helpful to Israel. Mark Weber is not a revisionist, evidently
because he no longer sees revisionism as an effective weapon against Israel.
That suggests that in the past his adherence to revisionism was to gain a
propaganda tool against Israel. That evaluation of him is new, at least for
me.

*

9
August 2010 – Fredrick Töben comments:
I share Professor Butz’s view that Revisionism is an heuristic method used
by any thinking person to acquire and evaluate new information in order to
develop a deeper understanding of whatever is under consideration, and which
transcends any vested interest categories.

Remember,
my thoughts on this is summed up thus: "Don't blame the Jews! Blame those
that bend to their pressure." Why do I say this? Because if anyone runs
around blaming Jews for the world's troubles, then that is mere scapegoating,
a human frailty certainly but one we need to overcome if we wish to retain our
moral and intellectual integrity where truth is a defence and where the quest
for beauty, justice and truth make up our ideal world. Otherwise we may as
well embrace the mindset of the Holocaust believers who scapegoat the
Germans-Nazis, et al for their own personal corruption and personal
inadequacies without ever realizing that in order to quest for freedom you
have to ask: freedom from what and freedom for what? The ultimate is being
autark, self-sufficient in one's thinking and thereby being at one with
God-creation-life-nature, embracing and merging into the pulsations of the
universe - for a while at least...

_________________

Fredrick
Töben responds to Robert Muehlenkamp's blusterings:

1.
I'm just passing by because I'm placing stuff on my website www.toben.biz,
especially the 12-point Butz item, and the AIDS matter, which reminds me of how
that fraud established itself into a Ponzi scheme, as did the Holocaust-Shoah
decades ago.

2.
I like the way Robbie Muehlenkamp huffs-and-puffs-and-bluffs his way through
responses without realizing that he has to prove his case while Revisionists do
not have to prove anything.

3.
Unfortunately his sneering at and slandering anyone who disagrees with his
opinions reduces his blog to a shouting match - most uncivilized, and I
understand why Revisionists will not waste theirtime in engaging with this kind of uncivilized exchange.

4.
It still amazes me how so many Germans went from national Socialism to national
masochism, and blindly embraced this rubbish contained in the 'Holocaust-Shoah'
narrative.

5.
Now Robbo, mate, let me see your response to Butz's 12 points. Should be
interesting. And, just for clarification purposes, could you please send me a
photo of the homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz?